Women must stop telling boys there is something wrong with them.


Another example of feminist narcissism abusing the self-conception of children.

The superficial sanctimonious rhetoric is this: “If we can stop boys growing into men that behave like jerks, we won’t have to teach our daughters how to deflect a man in power making a comment about her boobs – or much worse.”

The messaging cutting through that rhetoric is this: “Boys are intrinsically defective and need to be fixed. Girls are perfect just as they are.”

This is dangerously distorting the self-conception of BOTH boys and girls. And it’s being promoted by self-absorbed, narcissistic women more concerned with the gratification they feel from conforming to fashionable, ego-flattering ideological constructs than the psychological health of their children.


Rebuttals of the Week#11: Why ‘progressives’ hate reality


Poor old Tony Abbott just can’t catch a break it seems. He makes some completely benign, not uncommon, absolutely reasonable pro-marriage comment and all the tolerant, compassionate, accepting, non-judgemental, empathetic, morally righteous ‘progressives’ and feminists take it as an opportunity to unleash upon him any vile, cruel, dehumanizing accusation and epithet their corrupt little minds can generate.

Abbott’s comment inspired the above nasty, predictably anti-male and anti-Western civilization screed by Jenny Noyes in the radical feminist propaganda pamphlet The Age. As usual, this was an invitation to all the exemplars of virtue and goodness on the ‘progressive’/feminist Left among the general public to weigh in with their own wise and insightful observations in the comment section. In other words, there was a lot of this sort of thing:

Sharon F: “Cockhead”

Sezzy: “Being a woman myself, I feel like I need protection from idiots like him. Bloody ignorant fool!”

Bubba: “the irony is that marriage has not protected his missus or kids from having a complete dickhead as a husband and father.”

Stephen: “The man is just a delusional fool. I cannot wait to see the look on his hideous head when we finally receive true equality.”

Faye W: “Abbott you are a dickhead and an embarrassment.”

So a contributor to the comment section, Carl  L, tried to raise the quality of the discourse by injecting some factual evidence into the discussion:

Carl L: Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.

ta a

Mum’s boyfriend – the worst sexual risk to children

Which provoked quite a few responses like these from folks who won’t let truth get between them and their preferred version of reality:

Kirsten A: “So, not a peer reviewed piece of literature.”

Lisa B: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”

My rebuttal, directed primarily at Lisa, is a breakdown of an extremely common thinking pattern which a lot of bad thinkers default to when they are confronted with evidence and argument that refutes their self-confirming, subjective beliefs. It’s the “Truth or Concept Pattern”. It highlights the distinction between people who have an attachment to a belief or concept which they find personally gratifying in some way,  and those who have an attachment to truth. When you become aware of the pattern, you’ll see it all of the time…. particularly when debating ‘progressives’, feminists, Leftists etc..

Going to Getugly: “Source is more than 5 years old lol”. Just like Kirsten Alys above. I’ll tell you how your mind is working here Lisa so you can improve your reasoning in the future:

Lisa’s mind: “I have a specific perception of this issue and  I’m really attached to it because  it’s very satisfying to my ego.  And I’ve never bothered to look into it because I just assume I’m right if a particular belief appeals to me.

Now I’m presented with credible information that completely invalidates my preferred assumptions and which gives me insight into actual, objective truth.

But I’m not interested in objective TRUTH! MY priority is preserving my preferred but false perception… because the satisfaction I derive from believing it is WAY more important to me than having an authentic appreciation of reality.

Problem: I refuse to update my understanding of this issue based on this new information (like a mature thinker would do)…. but I need some excuse that appears to justify my irrational denial of reality.

Solution: Oh, look! This was published in 2012.  I’ll assert that because the study was published FIVE WHOLE YEARS ago… that makes it invalid somehow! Sure, that makes no sense…. it’s a completely arbitrary proclamation…. and if I’m asked to explain why that invalidates it I’ll have to make something else up on the spot. But it’s all I’ve got! Oh yeah…. and I’ll put a condescending ‘lol’ at the end (even though that’s the sort of thing 14 year olds do) to convey that I’m so much more ‘aware’ and ‘clever’ than the dummy who provided the information.”

Do you see how transparent this flawed thinking process is, Lisa? Hopefully now that it’s been pointed out, you and Kirsten… as well as a lot of other women posting here…. will catch yourselves before you default to this pattern of inadequate reasoning in the future.



How dare they assume they can decide what is ‘true’ for Donald Trump!


Where is the intellectual consistency? On the one hand they’re supporting the premise that what is ‘true’ and ‘real’ is whatever transgendered people subjectively ‘feel‘ is true for them….and no one has the right to question that or impose their standards for truth on them.

And yet when they say Donald Trump’s support for LGBT rights was a “con”…. they are imposing their personal ideas of ‘true’ and ‘real’ onto him. What makes them think they have the right to determine what is ‘true’ for someone else?



Excuse me, mainstream media! Your anti white male prejudice is showing.


So if politicians respond to the legitimate concerns of “middle aged white men”…. it’s characterised as “charismatic” politicians exploiting white male anger. Sounds scary. Kind of brings to mind scenarios that are vaguely Hitlerian.

Why then when “progressive” politicians pander to the demands and alleged grievances of women and feminists (or any other identifiable group in society pushing issues of identity politics or other ‘social justice’ causes) is that never characterised as “charismatic” politicians ‘exploiting’ (primarily white) female anger (or transgender anger? Or racial minority anger? Or aboriginal anger? Or youth anger? etc.) Why are we to think of that as nothing other than responsible, engaged politicians addressing the needs of their constituents?

Could it be that this is a vivid example of a pervasive but socially acceptable ideological prejudice embedded in the media that is being propagandised to the public at large?

Let’s see…You have one group in society identified by race and gender whose suffering and genuine grievances are characterised in the mainstream media as vaguely ominous and sinister (why are they so “angry”?). Politicians who attempt to address the grievances of that identified group are characterised as extremely sinister… even invoking not particularly subtle allusions to authoritarian dictators.

At the same time, every other identifiable group with a grievance in society almost always receives unqualified affirmation, empathy and validation from that same mainstream media. Politicians who take up the causes of those classes of aggrieved people are lauded for their ‘progressive’ outlook and their moral and ethical excellence.


Is the propaganda working? Ask yourself how often you’ve heard or read some variant of the expression “old white men” used as a pejorative to deride and invalidate the perspective of people who fall into that combined category of age, race and gender.

Here is a sample I pulled from a quick glance at just a single thread on a major newspaper’s online comment section recently:

Sharon K: How unusual that a middle aged white Man doesn’t understand female repression. I’m stunned!

Joe McD: It looks so sad to see old white men insisting that women aren’t in danger of being oppressed. I’m guessing you’re not much of a student of history or politics in your spare time.

Kim Ro: Another white middle aged male mansplaining to women what/how the should feel/experience so predictable.

Nicolette A: But hey, freely tell me about how it sucks for white men because trans people are using the toilet they identify with

Kevin C: I would however like to reduce the unreasonable influence some rich old men have over the overall system.

That isn’t individual insight, folks. That’s group-think.

Face it… hysterical Trump haters have no idea what they are talking about.

A very good friend who has been consistently re-posting the standard, predictable anti-Trump memes and mainstream news items on Facebook recently re-posted this clip of Yuri Bezmenov from the 1980’s :

Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions… but considering the tone of every other politically-themed post she has ever shared, I’m  guessing that like just about everyone who tends towards a ‘progressive’-Left view of the world, she interprets all information that she happens to come across as confirmation of her preconceived, stereotypical ‘progressive’-Left conclusions.

In my experience, most ‘progressive’, Leftist, SJW adherents to all things liberal and otherwise politically correct are aware of little if any context for the snippets of video, news reports and various opinion pieces that drift into their consciousness as the result of no deliberate effort of their own. They simply incorporate this free-floating messaging into their established view – and as they rarely if ever encounter living, breathing human beings in their circle of peers who do anything other than reflect their own opinions back to them… they have no incentive or intellectual pressure to reflect on the limitations,  potential flaws or weaknesses in their point of  view.

In other words, whatever comes to them most easily is all they know… and all they feel they need to know… in order to consider themselves sufficiently informed on any given subject…. not to mention to pass judgement on anyone whom they assume can only be less enlightened than themselves to actually hold a different opinion.

It’s like the uptick in sales recently of George Orwell’s novel 1984... attributed to Trump winning the White House. The people rushing to buy the 1948 novel are of course under the impression that the book predicts the potential totalitarian regime that a ‘conservative’ right-winger like Trump is on the verge of bringing into being.

If these people had paid attention in high school when they should have first been introduced to the novel, they would know it is in fact a warning from a member of the Left about the very real – and repeatedly proven – dangers of a tendency towards totalitarian tyranny arising from…. wait for it… the  Left! (pssst…. that’s the side of politics that people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are embedded in).

But hey…. who needs reality and context when self-serving, circular reasoning is so much more gratifying?

So in a sincere effort to introduce context into the discussion of these very important subjects, I offered the following comment to my friend who posted the link to the video:

“So you realise that this is Yuri Bezmenov talking 30 years ago about how ‘Cultural Marxism’ has infiltrated the institutions… like the media and academia… and is being used to produce generations who are hostile towards their own country, the West and its traditional values…  and who embrace the values of Marxism, right?

In other words, the process he’s talking about began in the 1960’s…. and this video was filmed in the 80’s…. so it’s been roughly 50 years…. which is exactly the period of time Bezmenov  says is required to bring about the desired shift in the culture.

In OTHER other words…. the people he was warning us about in the 1980’s are today’s ‘progressive’-Left liberals…. the people, you might have noticed,  who are presently losing their minds over Donald Trump.”

‘Rebuttals of the Week!’ #8: Stephen Colbert’s joke worse than homophobic… it wasn’t funny!

I have always been a big admirer of anyone who has  mastered the art of acerbic wit. The convergence of intelligence, sophistication, humour, critical insight, self-awareness, language skills and a precise comedic timing is damn impressive. People who wield this skill can expose bullshit, enlighten  and make you laugh out loud all at the same time…. often with a single,  impeccably well-observed and penetrating sentence.

The more famous maestros of the artform immediately spring to mind. Think of Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Winston Churchill or William F. Buckley in the world of politics and commentary. Of course there is Johnny Carson and Woody Allen from mainstream and late-night entertainment. John Lennon was famous for it. There is the genius of the Monty Python crew with their deliciously merciless skewering of the absurdity of the human condition itself.

One of the wonderful things about this talent is that some of its most gifted exponents are completely unknown, otherwise average people from every walk of life and background you can imagine. I’ve met several of them in my time… my own dear ol’ dad was one of the all-time greats.

So when I see bland purveyors of  contemporary ‘infotainment’ lionised by the public as comedic geniuses for smugly purging themselves of whatever adolescent, puerile inanities  happen to emerge from the black hole of narcissism that is the wellspring of their particular brand of creativity…. it bugs me.

Which leads me to my “Rebuttal of the Week” . It is inspired by the recent brouhaha ( or was it a fracas?) over hi-larious conformist,  politically Leftist shill Stephen Colbert’s homo-erotic fantasy about  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

My exchange with commentator Jane C (below), came from her response to Washington Post columnist Craig Konnoth’s weird, social justice warrior-esque, politically correct admonishment of Colbert. Like a lot of people, Konnoth found Colbert’s joke contemptible…. but not because it was infantile, vulgar, self-consciously mean spirited and unfunny.

cv(Read: Craig Konnoth: Sorry, progressives. Gay jokes are never OK, even when you’re bashing Trump)

No, for Konnoth, Colbert’s crime was that he transgressed a sacrosanct edict of the religion of ‘progressive’-Leftism: Thou shalt not make a “gay joke”. For it has been ordained that gay jokes are “never okay”. This makes Colbert guilty of the sin of “homophobia”. And, as Konnoth reminds us, homophobia is just another form of misogyny.

Yes folks, I kid you not. Konnoth actually makes that argument in his column. Let’s take a moment to fully absorb what is happening here: We have a major American mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post (and also Canada’s National Post by reprinting the piece) promoting the notion that a particularly boorish joke about falatio is proof of an irrational ‘fear‘ of homosexuals… which is really just an expression of hatred of women.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should be mad at Stephen Colbert.

And they wonder why intelligent, reasonable adults are abandoning their lousy publications in droves.

The fact that morally superior ‘progressives’ like commentator Jane C. are fighting with morally superior ‘progressives’ like writer Craig Konnoth over who is most against homophobia and therefore the most morally superior is not only hilarious (ironically, unlike Colbert)…. it is yet another example of how the anti-rational, cognitively self-annihilating ideological foundation of the ‘progressive’-Left is causing the whole thing to collapse in upon itself ( see Progressive Left is Eating Itself Alive! ).

Here is Jane’s comment and my ‘Rebuttal of the Week!’:

Jane C: It’s a BRILLIANT monologue – super funny and it did exactly what he intended to – piss off the conservatives and those who are actually homophobic and thought that gay jokes are not ok, so here’s looking at you, writer of this article.

Going to Getugly  Going to Getugly:  Unfortunately Jane, we live in an era in which people’s context for what constitutes the zenith of wit and sophisticated late night TV humour stretches all the way back to the early days of Jimmy Kimmel.

That’s the only plausible explanation for how anyone could possibly mistake Colbert’s spewing of adolescent cheap shots designed to pander to the mundane, predictable prejudices of his comfortable, liberal, middle class audience as somehow worthy of the evaluation of “BRILLIANT”.

If you want to consider yourself some kind of aficionado of comedy… you may want to extend your exposure to the genre beyond the immediate era. If you do, you will notice that until very recently, comedy that was recognized as ‘BRILLIANT’ actually challenged and unsettled the assumptions of the comfortable, status-quo class. Now, it panders to it.

And even the most mainstream late night television hosts and their audiences could once distinguish between acerbic wit and infantile, crude vindictiveness.

Based on your comments, you clearly represent a distinct changing of the guard in this respect.

Obnoxious Feminist’s Top 5 Instructions For Men

Feminists like compiling lists of instructions for men to comply with in order to be deemed acceptable by their feminist judges. In this video I have a quick look at one of these lists of 5 hilariously dumb demands from professional bitter feminist Clementine Ford that appeared in the Australian daily newspaper The Age.